to me it makes sence to do the owner:group:author format since the owner is the most important person, he owns the file after that i think the groups comes in terms of inportance especially since there 2 also are used in the file permission field. the autor should come last since it is extra info like the creation/moddification time of the file
Victor Pelt Quoting Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Alfred M. Szmidt (ams) contributed a patch to the GNU file utilities > to cause 'ls --author -l' to output a file's author as well as its > owner and group. While reviewing that patch, the topic came up: which > order should the author, owner, and group be listed? > > For example, suppose a file 'foo' is owned by 'eggert', has author > 'ams', and group 'staff'. Here are some plausible outputs for the > command 'ls --author -l foo': > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 eggert staff ams 15460 May 18 15:28 foo > -rw-rw-r-- 1 eggert ams staff 15460 May 18 15:28 foo > -rw-rw-r-- 1 ams eggert staff 15460 May 18 15:28 foo > > Which of these outputs is preferable and why? > > A similar issue arises with the chown command, e.g., > which of the following should set the author to 'ams'? > > chown eggert:staff:ams foo > chown eggert:ams:staff foo > chown ams:eggert:staff foo > > Presumably the chown-command order should be the same as the ls order. > > In earlier private discussion on this topic, I made this point: > > The owner and author are uids whereas the group is a gid, and it > seems to me that the uids should be kept together in the listing. > > ams replied: > > Actually, wouldn't it be easier and more compatible to have it in > the [owner:group:author] order? If you specify an empty author > field (owner::group) that becomes quite weird instead of using > something along the lines of "owner:group" where one can quietly > discard the author field. You also change the group more often than > the author of a file, which is only changed once, when the file is > created. > > I also asked: > > In practice, how common is it in the Hurd for the author to differ > from the owner? What are typical situations where this occurs? > Perhaps if I understood this, I would see why it makes sense to put > the info in a particular order. > > And ams replied: > > No idea, as this feature hasn't been implemented yet it hasn't been > used. To be frank, I don't understand what use this field has, why > not just put a "Written by:" tag at the top of the source > code/document/whatever. Which one can then later view with `head'. > The only time I can think that it has any real use is for binary > files, like who compiled a specific binary. You will have to ask > Thomas Bushnell about this. > > _______________________________________________ > Help-hurd mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd > _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
